It's happening right now, look around at what freedoms we have lost since 9/11
Look at the power Home Land Security has and how much more power they are looking for. This is a new Nazi SS police for the USSA.
All I can say is "lock and load-em heavy boys because here they come!!!"

Although the parallels you draw might be compared to historical precedents meaningfully, some people get an upwelling of irrational feeling as soon as certain hot-button words come into the discussion. While that failing is more theirs than yours, you still have to play nice in the language arena that's been defined. The enforcers of unpopular laws cannot be Nazi SS police, because that would mean they were doing something wrong. Therefore you have to call them liberators and heroes and can-do type of guys. They always are, just ask them.

Come to think of it, MTV did have a video that showed soldiers bursting into homes and rounding up people, then to the viewer it's revealed that these are the exact scenes that happened in Germany, so...

Anyway, the Nazi SS were the end result of the legal, political process in Germany. Though the orders carried out by the SS were later exposed to be unacceptable by any standard of human decency, at the time they were following orders that were legal according to German law. Legal standards and human decency are not always connected. Problem is, the people who carry out the orders always think they have the moral high ground by virtue of having the law behind them.

In 1945, some of them kept spouting their tired excuses until the little stool got kicked out from under their feet. You can go to any failed dictatorship around the world, the foot soldiers of legally mandated terror never thought of themselves as terrorists, but as the "good guys".

As for the word choice, much of the success of anti gunners has revolved around controlling the language. That is losing some of its power with the internet, and also I really don't think the majority of people are as stupid as the antis had hoped, but anyway...

I apologize for the lengthy digression, but it seemed entirely appropriate since the Nazi SS theme came up, and IMHO it was better to offer some meaningful discussion than to act like a taboo word was said. Godwin's so-called law is out the window when a military or quasi-military force actually takes over a town and unwelcome house searches enter the picture.

That has not happened yet, but if it did, it would be 100% appropriate to compare it to Nazi and Soviet tactics. Well, OK, there was Katrina, but people can't even agree on what happened. I do know I saw some disturbing videos of things that shouldn't have happened in the USA.

Maybe my ancestry makes me a tad sensitive to nascent police states and the tactics used therein. I don't want to say any more about that.

To steer it back on topic, the anti gun extremists are trying any and every strategy they can, and it's pretty obvious that tying gun owners to illicit "arms dealers" and the Mexican drug wars is just one of these strategies. We already know they weren't above inventing phony legal scholarship (Joyce Foundation) to advance their aims.

The OP pointed out that everyone knew an import ban was coming, and we all knew it was just a question of what transparent excuse would be made this time.

As Huey Long and Any .45 pointed out, it is much more likely the Mexican gangs are getting their guns from other countries, especially in Latin America. They have full auto weapons, they have grenades. These are not coming from Gander Mountain.

The dedicated antis have proven once again that no tactic is beneath them. They're going to make their agenda palatable to the public any way it takes.

I'm waiting for them to get a "spokesperson" who announces that "now, loud-mouthed gun owners will finally shut up". The parallel might even go unnoticed.

Quote:

So... You think everything that limits your freedom is called socialism?

Why is anyone here upset that they can't buy imported firearms when there are American manufacturers selling firearms? And here's a hint about the cause of any drug problem: Americans wanting to buy drugs, illegal, I assume.

Would you be upset if you couldn't buy a Mercedes and were forced to buy a Cadillac?

Repeat after me: F R E E D O M

My money. I buy what I want.

Would yo be upset if you couldn't buy a Toyota and were forced to buy a PINTO?

Since when is the ATF not enforcing the current laws? All the "semi-automatic assault weapons" (ATF's term, not mine) I see are made with a U.S. reciever and are therefore legally a U.S. made gun, were imported prior to the implementation of the ban, or have had enough features (pistol grip, bayonet lug, flash hider, etc.) removed that they no longer qualify as a "semi-automatic assault weapon". Likewise, any imported handguns that I've ever seen that don't have enough '68 GCA "points" are either U.S. made or were imported prior to 1968. True assault weapons (i.e. select-fire weapons) are already illegal to import unless they're going to specific organizations like police, military, or dealers that sell to police and military. I've not seen any post-86 machineguns for sale to individuals. Thusly it would seem that these legislators are calling for something that's already being done.

Originally posted by RedneckFur

Quote:

That said, I didnt know it was illegal to import non-sporting arms into the US, but really, what defines a sporting arm, acording to that law? Is a WASR 10 a sporting arm? How about a Glock?

A Glock is legally a sporting arm since it meets the '68 GCA's "points," the WASR 10 is, legally, a U.S. made gun since the reciever is made here and assembled with an imported parts kit. The only AK-variant that I know of currently being imported with a foreign-made reciever is the Saiga, and it has had all of the "assault weapon" features removed in order to make it a "sporting" gun.

Originally posted by BlueTrain

Quote:

Why is anyone here upset that they can't buy imported firearms when there are American manufacturers selling firearms? And here's a hint about the cause of any drug problem: Americans wanting to buy drugs, illegal, I assume.

Would you be upset if you couldn't buy a Mercedes and were forced to buy a Cadillac?

Because I think it would have a detrimental effect on the quality of American Firearms in the long run. A perfect example of this is the American auto industry in the first half of the 20th century. Prior to the 1960's, imported cars were both rare and expensive. Because they had virtually no competition besides each other, the American auto makers didn't really develop anything all that different after the introduction of the automatic transmission (all big cars with V-8's that got poor gas mileage). When the fuel-crisis of the 1970's hit, the American makers were caught with their pants down and the Japanese got a foothold with the cars that the Americans never bothered to develop. It's likely that the same thing could happen with the firearms industry as you'd be severely limiting the competition and creating a kind of monopoly similar to what the American auto industry enjoyed during the early 20th century.

And yes, I'd be quite irate if I was forced to buy a Cadillac rather than a Mercedes (though I'd prefer a BMW) because Cadilllac's quality is, IMHO, inferior to that of Mercedes.

To some of our members here:
I have been cautioned for comments using inflamatory language, such as misspelling Democrat, bringing up facism, in respect to the avenues used to limit freedoms, etc.

I believe the point was that we have both parties, and more participating, and, to not use comments that would inflame, but to engage in a rational discussion of the situation.

"The United Socialist States of America"

is perhaps an example of that. Pointing out that 10 or more states have issued declarations of Soverignty would perhaps be a less inflamatory manner of bringing up that this IS a major issue and concern for the people of the United States.

I function in an industry that is being told how to do our job, teaching, and, that we must insure illegals will be able to read, perfectly, in some absurdly short period of time. It's called No Child Left Behind, and, it's a bunch of people in Congress writing goals without funding, telling states they must do something they cannot, and, doing it out of their authority under the Constitution.

Government, centralized government, that oversteps a
democracy, or republic, tends to fit under a number of names as it progresses. Being aware of the tendencies is good, and I find parallels to history a very effective way
of seeing the progress towards where other nations have ended up.

I would be cautious in blaming one party or the other.
The bill that allowed the formation of more centralized government, The Homeland Security Act, was a joint effort, both parties voting it in, and, a Republican president signing it, IIRC.

It is becoming quite clear that the elected officials we have in office, and both parties need to be reformed...

Originally posted by johnwilliamson062:
This stuff is genius. Everyone realizes this new law requiring US firms to use US steel is going to kill some of the manufacturing companies like Caterpillar.

Quote:

H.R. 1, SEC. 1605. USE OF AMERICAN IRON, STEEL, AND MANUFACTURED GOODS. (a) None of the funds appropriated or otherwise made available by this Act may be used for a project for the construction, alteration, maintenance, or repair of a public building or public work unless all of the iron, steel, and manufactured goods used in the project are produced in the United States.

The law does not require all US firms to use only US steel. It only requires that the iron, steel or manufactured goods that go into a building or project funded by H.R. 1 be made in the US. So the the girders in a H.R. 1 bridge and the toilets in a H.R. 1 building will have to be made in the US, but Caterpillar can still use whatever steel it wishes to build its bulldozers.

Quote:

(d) This section shall be applied in a manner consistent with
United States obligations under international agreements.

By the time the government sorts out all of the international trade agreements and treaties, the Buy American provision may end up as little more than grandstanding for the public.

So, if insurgents in Iraq were going into Iran (for example) to buy weapons, you would agree that the Iranians can't be held responsible for that. Right? I mean, that would be Iraq's problem, not Iran's.

Personally, I don't see how an illegal gun problem in Mexico is only THEIR problem. I can't drive down to Rosarito for carne asada anymore because it's too dangerous. I'm unhappy about that and I'm unhappy that any part of the problem can be traced to my own community and that people in my own community want to just say, "Not my problem."

Mexico doesn't care about the problems that come into this country from theirs which is why I don't care about any alleged problems going into their country from ours. You know why you can't buy sudafed over the counter wihtout signing a register anymore? Because a bunch of politicians were convinced that home made meth was the biggest source of meth in this country. The fact is that the majority of meth has always been smuggled in from Mexico. So I get inconvenienced at the drug store because of Mexico. Does the Mexican government care? Why aren't they stopping the flow of illegal drugs and immigrants across our border?

The level of corruption makes our most corrupt politicians look like choir boys. The cartels have so many people on the payroll that they can get what they want.

The American gun culture makes an easy target for Mexico but the reality is that the criminals who want guns in Mexico can get them all over central america not to mention elsewhere in the world. And we aren't talking about nuetered firearms that are available for commercial sales in the US.

What do you want the US government to do about this problem? The acts being committed by these people are highly illegal and they care little about US laws regarding the purchase and importation of firearms. I guarantee that enforcing 922r will not slow down the cartels in Mexico from getting the weapons they want.

These American politicians who want this enforce don't care about what is going on in Mexico they just want to restrict gun rights and the firearms available for purchase as much as possible.

This email link is to reach site administrators for assistance, if you cannot access TFL via other means. If you are a TFL member and can access TFL, please do not use this link; instead, use the forums (like Questions, Suggestions, and Tech Support) or PM an appropriate mod or admin.

If you are experiencing difficulties posting in the Buy/Sell/Trade subforums of TFL, please read the "sticky" announcement threads at the top of the applicable subforum. If you still feel you are qualified to post in those subforums, please contact "Shane Tuttle" (the mod for that portion of TFL) via Private Message for assistance.

This email contact address is not an "Ask the Firearms Expert" service. Such emails will be ignored. If you have a firearm related question, please register and post it on the forums.